Post by JB on Mar 25, 2007 21:11:58 GMT -6
Here's the link: www.dailyherald.com/search/searchstory.asp?id=292582
I found the Hobson Ponds Q&A most interesting:
==================================
Q. What are your thoughts on the council’s decision to rezone six acres of farmland at the Ponds of Hobson West?
Fieseler: The city council erred badly in its decision to rezone to multi-family use six acres of farmland at the Ponds of Hobson West. Once open land is developed, it’s gone.
That’s why we need to make sure future city councils strike the right balance between open space, residential development and commercial development. By consistently surrendering to developers, the council forfeits its chance to preserve vital open space for future generations.
We have a year to keep the Ponds of Hobson West from becoming a townhouse development, and the council can and should lead a coalition with the park district, the forest preserve district, nearby property owners, the business community and residents, generally, to preserve that open space.
Furstenau: I voted no on the rezoning and I also voted no on the townhouses. This land should be left as a park and a lasting legacy to the citizens of Naperville.
Meyer: I do not agree with the decision to rezone the six acres at the Ponds of Hobson West from single-family to multi-family. I firmly believe there must be a compelling reason to change zoning.
At the meetings I attended and in the discussions I’ve had, I did not hear a compelling reason to deviate from the planned zoning.
Additionally, a vast number of residents and the plan commission did not agree with the higher density zoning change.
My focus is on the development and redevelopment of the entire city. We need to re-evaluate and update our master plan and not deviate from the plan unless there is a compelling reason.
We need to determine the best uses of “fill-in” development by considering “intensity of use,” impact on surrounding community and maintaining the character of the surrounding area.
Roehll: Neither the city nor the park district should be buying open space to “prevent” development. It’s bad public policy. If the park district determines the additional acreage adds value or amenity to the adjacent park, then the park district should offer to purchase the property. From a planning perspective, the council’s action to change the land use was appropriate and I would have supported it as well.
Senger: I voted not to change the zoning from residential to townhouses. I did not see a justification for the change.
Would I like to see the farmland as a park? Yes. But before we do anything, it makes sense to see what will happen with the Martin Mitchell property.
Martin Mitchell is a 212-acre parcel owned by the city through a bequest of Caroline Martin Mitchell. Naperville Central, Naper Settlement, Knoch Park, Sportsman’s Park, the community garden plots, Naperville Cemetery and a part of Edward Hospital currently occupy it.
Central is looking to expand, prompting a discussion among all the users. Hobson Ponds is close enough to the Martin Mitchell property to be considered as a place where uses could be swapped.
Wehrli: I voted to rezone this property. The ideal solution is for it to become a park, but that is not the city’s charge. A vote to purchase this property would have resulted in a property tax rate increase to pay for it. I can’t see raising all our tax rates to pay for a neighborhood park.
If the city went down this path, where would it stop? Mayneland Farm and several others parcels are available, but it would take a massive tax increase to generate the money to purchase them. We have other taxing bodies in town whose charge is to provide these services.
I don’t think duplicating services and raising taxes is a good plan. By rezoning the property to multi-family and not single-family, the impact on our roads and schools is considerably less.
I found the Hobson Ponds Q&A most interesting:
==================================
Q. What are your thoughts on the council’s decision to rezone six acres of farmland at the Ponds of Hobson West?
Fieseler: The city council erred badly in its decision to rezone to multi-family use six acres of farmland at the Ponds of Hobson West. Once open land is developed, it’s gone.
That’s why we need to make sure future city councils strike the right balance between open space, residential development and commercial development. By consistently surrendering to developers, the council forfeits its chance to preserve vital open space for future generations.
We have a year to keep the Ponds of Hobson West from becoming a townhouse development, and the council can and should lead a coalition with the park district, the forest preserve district, nearby property owners, the business community and residents, generally, to preserve that open space.
Furstenau: I voted no on the rezoning and I also voted no on the townhouses. This land should be left as a park and a lasting legacy to the citizens of Naperville.
Meyer: I do not agree with the decision to rezone the six acres at the Ponds of Hobson West from single-family to multi-family. I firmly believe there must be a compelling reason to change zoning.
At the meetings I attended and in the discussions I’ve had, I did not hear a compelling reason to deviate from the planned zoning.
Additionally, a vast number of residents and the plan commission did not agree with the higher density zoning change.
My focus is on the development and redevelopment of the entire city. We need to re-evaluate and update our master plan and not deviate from the plan unless there is a compelling reason.
We need to determine the best uses of “fill-in” development by considering “intensity of use,” impact on surrounding community and maintaining the character of the surrounding area.
Roehll: Neither the city nor the park district should be buying open space to “prevent” development. It’s bad public policy. If the park district determines the additional acreage adds value or amenity to the adjacent park, then the park district should offer to purchase the property. From a planning perspective, the council’s action to change the land use was appropriate and I would have supported it as well.
Senger: I voted not to change the zoning from residential to townhouses. I did not see a justification for the change.
Would I like to see the farmland as a park? Yes. But before we do anything, it makes sense to see what will happen with the Martin Mitchell property.
Martin Mitchell is a 212-acre parcel owned by the city through a bequest of Caroline Martin Mitchell. Naperville Central, Naper Settlement, Knoch Park, Sportsman’s Park, the community garden plots, Naperville Cemetery and a part of Edward Hospital currently occupy it.
Central is looking to expand, prompting a discussion among all the users. Hobson Ponds is close enough to the Martin Mitchell property to be considered as a place where uses could be swapped.
Wehrli: I voted to rezone this property. The ideal solution is for it to become a park, but that is not the city’s charge. A vote to purchase this property would have resulted in a property tax rate increase to pay for it. I can’t see raising all our tax rates to pay for a neighborhood park.
If the city went down this path, where would it stop? Mayneland Farm and several others parcels are available, but it would take a massive tax increase to generate the money to purchase them. We have other taxing bodies in town whose charge is to provide these services.
I don’t think duplicating services and raising taxes is a good plan. By rezoning the property to multi-family and not single-family, the impact on our roads and schools is considerably less.
